16 Jun, 2010
Abolish government sanctioned marriage
Posted by: arabellasays In: Religious Fervor| Social Issues
I have no problem with defining marriage as existing only between a man and a woman. If fundamentalists believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, fine, let them have the term. But then the word needs to apply only to religious recognition of a relationship. If marriage must be defined as strictly between a man and a woman, it has been made an inherently religious-based term and the government, federal or state, should have no role in it. Nor should benefits be bestowed based on marriage. The state shouldn’t be doling out privileges based on a person’s religion.
The only government sanctioned contract should be a civil union – between any two consenting adults. Religious institutions don’t want government nosing into their
territory – except when it would allow them to institute discriminatory practices on those who do not subscribe to their religious beliefs.
Claims by the religious right that marriage needs to be restricted because the primary purpose of marriage is creating an environment for raising children and it is best for children to be raised by a mother and a father are disineguous at best. I don’t hear them clamoring for couples to be required to sign agreements to procreate or trying to deny marriage to those who are infertile or are too old to have children. If this is the primary purpose of marriage, those who have no intention of having children should also be excluded. And while we’re at it, perhaps we should take as wards of the state any children who are born out of wedlock or whose parents divorce. Clearly, the opponents of gay marriage are being less than candid about their motivations in an attempt to turn their religious convictions into a secular rationale.
Reasonably, you would be able get married in a church without having a legal contract. The church can choose who they will marry (or not). Or you could have your civil union recognized by the state and be subject to the associated responsibilities and privileges. Or you could choose to do both. The state has no right to discriminate on what, if everyone is being honest, are solely religious grounds.
